gogul:

Artful Dodger: Then show it, and it's source and how they collected the data.

I know how easily some figures can be distorted. Show me it isn't and I'll believe you. But our papers agree with what I'm saying.. even Murdoch's bunch are quiet.. surprisingly

When I was younger I was confused. When I was 20 I was done with it. I had to read about communism, found the art side as well, beheld a plan. Interesting, my spirit wasn't satisfied though, with 18 I had to go elsewhere, I'm there since '99, I'm 33 now. I'm happy inside, my basic knowledge since 20 years.

Communism is a cheap and violent copy of a several 1000 years old wish, the wish lighted up a little while 100 years ago. What a nonsense the past 100 years, all for a bad illustration. Communism is a intrigue and the wish to insult God in its inner essence.

Communism is past. What disturbs is the twist of definition. Socialism. I'm not a academic mind, allowes me to find words. Social belongs to "Hey, what can I do for you", not the powerhungry plastering of command economy.

Socialists are somewhat confused. What could socialists do for all of us? Hunt little fishes like Madoff as chill pill for the people? Now that is opium for the people! How about touching the real thing. What has Oswald Grubel lost in Switzerland anyway. What has the east German intelligenzia lost everywhere but the former DDR countries? The Germans from the west pay a hard share and build you a valid infrastructure in your homelands. Go back to grandma, do something for your health, it's in everyones lifespan we do await the big big knive, since ever. I *can* await, no hurry *here*, relax *here*.

What do you people stick to you bad concience, I don't get it. Make steps, steps back that is as well. Be social, ask "What can I do for you.", what do you expect? Heal your self if you don't get it, our mind that is.

gogul: "Citizen Smith" has been informed

gogul: I'll have to check if that's allowed with the Tooting Popular Front.

1. Tort reform

2. Medical Savings Accounts
this serves 4 purposes, first of all it gives an incentive to not frivolously go to the doctor for minor stuff, for instance, currently doctors are over prescribing antibiotics for viruses which both waste money and break down the immune system.
Secondly, it acts as a potential bonus retirement fund, unused money comes back tax free.
Thirdly, It fully covers catastrophic conditions which is what insurance is really meant for, not every day stuff.
And lastly, it would bring down the cost of doctor visits because it would promote people to shop around for the best value, (free market).

3. and one of the most important things, any one that doesn't have documentation of legal residency gets whatever medical service they need, the bill gets sent to their legal country of citizenship and to make sure that their government pays, the money is decucted from the aid that we give them, this solves more than one problem, first it covers 12-20 million of the 45 million uncovered, it would lessen the immigration problem as governments would no longer encourage their people to come here, and it would bring down cost that every one of us have to absorb.

This isn't the total fix but I'll bet this would get us most of the way there

Vikings: I love your number 3 idea..........makes sense LOL

Bernice:

(V): a 2005 article isn't that old.

Vikings:

I was at the docs today and in the waiting room is a sign: This facility serves everyone regardless of ability to pay.

That's typical of many, if not most practices.

Vikings: Sounds good to me.... my biggest fear is something catastrophic happening, and I dont have any insurance for it..... but to have to pay such high prices for insurance to cover things like a visit when i need stitches for a cut, its not worth it for a young person in good health, its cheaper to just pay as you use.

Czuch: I'm in favor of regional care. If a region should be overwhelmed, it has to be properly analized what's wrong. Take the swine flue as example. Responsable for the swine flue is the WHO itself, the pharmaindustry in hope of business, the concentration of the animal husbandry to a few factories with 5000 swines and more, where this virus actally comes from. It's called causative principle, and the bill of the doc because of the swine flue, send it to Smithfield.

In 1965, 53 million US-swines were allocated in 1 million farms. This is a situation where every homeless, vagant, migrant labor could find roof and food. Today, 65 million swines are allocated in 65'000 factories, the half of them with more than 5000 animals.

Oversized flocks increase the possibility for new mutations of flues able to transfer from human to human. We know this since many years, it is neo conservative market logic who did sabotage this knowledge.

The US company Smithfield in Veracruz, Mexico, this is where the swineflue comes from, and it's by far no surprise. We have been warned that this would happen.

gogul: Nahhhh though being part of European history it's been a big subject of study. Both pre WWII and post WWII. Also due it being a hot topic, many documentaries have been made about it that I've seen. Plus live info... such as the fall of the Berlin wall.

That was a great day!!

Artful Dodger: Then show it, and it's source and how they collected the data.

Vikings: 1) needs sorting out I agree, the whole USA system of sue needs capping. Something that over here we've had.

2) Our gov uses a similar system to get part time workers into full time employment. It works. But as to people shopping around for a doc... This is a Hippocratic situation and as such I feel set limits on what doc's can charge should be limited.

3) I thought was already somewhat in place. All UK people are advised as a matter of course to take out medical insurance when visiting another country to which they are not covered automatically. Also.. if this recharge was in place then as such then every country ought to do the same.

Our docs have a sign that if you have medical insurance to tell them.

This guy in Australia is right on as far as I am concerned....

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html

Czuch: Many scientists know the truth about the global warming con but don't speak up because they universities they work for would possibly lose some funding or even their jobs could be in jeopardy. Politicians that talk about global warming as if it is man made are ignorant. They don't know. They've not studied the issue. They, like so many, jump on the band wagon. And in the end, if they get their way, we will pay big bucks.

Locally we are being forced to recycle. Now my rates have gone up. I have to recycle through the government or I will pay a fine. Never mind that for years I've recycled everything that's possible to recycle. No exceptions. So what I used to do for free, I now have to pay for.

It's only the beginning. There will be more nonsense from the government. Where there's a buck to be made, they will try to make it. Note the new term "carbon footprint." What the heck is that? It's mumbo-jumbo. They are morons. A bunch of fools.

Some idiot from Hollywood was interviewed and she talked about using less toilet paper. Seriously? If she's using less, then I'll use more. What an idiot. That's as bad as the PETA fool who complained about the Seattle fish market that is well known for throwing and catching of the fish they sell. The guy actually called the dead fish a cadaver. And how would you feel if we did that same thing to humans?

Another idiot. So I went out and bought a fish from the local market and we played a game of "fishball" with it. A few swings of the bat and that fish was mush. I packaged it up and sent it to PETA. With some crackers.

Ok, just kidding on that but it makes ya wanna puke sometimes.

Czuch: Well that Ice ages made us spread more about the world tends to make his thoughts a little nuts. As to random.. that's only due to lack of info over how.

Plus he ignores that we are the first race on this planet to be able to change significantly our surroundings, such as deforestation.. The dust bowl somewhat shows what can happen. That farmers here are restoring the use of natural predators regarding bugs that attack crops, which cuts down on the need of pesticides.

I agree, the carbon footprint thing is a bit crazy in certain respects, but it's also leading to a cut down in fuel usage by making cars more economical.

(V): I'm curious. How do you know he ignores anything? Which of his books have you read and which of his papers have you studied?

Artful Dodger: I'm just going by what I've learnt of our history as a species. By what I've seen and learnt of how important it is that we are a race (as such) with now no natural predators.

And by what the link Czuch posted.

Seems guys on both sides of the global warming debate are making money out of this business.

And can you provide a link to that 2005 article you are going on about? I thought you would have least done that.

(V): In other words your claims aren't really based on any fact, just your generalized opinion based on your own narrow experience.

And V, look back. I already posted the link long ago.

Artful Dodger: That link based on old data. Sure that's great You are saying having an opinion is bad?

Shall we all stop posting then?? And I thought having an opinion was better then c&p stuff!! Look.. have I missed a memo?

(V): Stating an opinion and then stating something as a fact (which you have done here) are not the same thing. You claim that the scientist's data was flawed. That's not an opinion. You are making an assertion. Either the scientist did overlook what you said he did, or he didn't. You can't have an opinion on that. It's either a fact that he did, or a fact that he didn't. Now you claim he DID. So it's reasonable to expect you to offer some proof of that claim.

C&P is fine as long as it's not your argument. Pointing out studies or articles (which we all do) is fine.

Artful Dodger: Ok... it is a fact that we are an adaptive species.. skin colour being one, hence as man left Africa and travelled far away our skin change to match our surroundings. It is a fact that during ice ages man did travel to escape (survival technique) and hence grew stronger. Man then as such became a stronger more adaptable race, hence our ability to travel to the four corners of the earth. The way Africa's climate changed, led to man moving.

........ An opinion based on what has learnt as being held as historic fact from findings by geologists is fine. But to distort the significance of the event on human existence by taking that many humans died during the ice ages as a decline, rather than a time of hardening and strengthening as nature doth provide from time to time. The dinosaurs opened up the way for mammals, yet at cost of much of life on Earth. But some survived.

For example... the humble hedgehog here has been in decline, but now.. they are learning not to crawl into a ball when on a road. Hence those hedgehogs that do not, and instead run are transferring that trait unto their descendants and the population is now on the increase.

Do you see the basis for my opinion now??

(V): where did you get the bit about hedgehogs "learning" not to crawl into a ball? They only turn themselves into a ball if they are threatened, how do they know a car is a threat? and why hasnt it happened in NZ...they do have cars there you know. LOL

CCP*****Hedgehogs are a powerful form of pest control. A single hedgehog can keep an average garden free of pests by eating up to 200 grams of insects each night. It is common throughout the United Kingdom to see people attempting to lure hedgehogs into their gardens with treats and hedgehog-sized holes in their fences.[citation needed]

One problem with using hedgehogs for garden pest control is the use of chemical insecticide. While the hedgehog is large enough to resist most insecticides, it cannot withstand them if it eats many insects which have become full of the poison. This causes many hedgehog deaths where pet hedgehogs eat contaminated bugs within the house.

In areas where hedgehogs have been introduced, such as New Zealand and the islands of Scotland, the hedgehog itself has become a pest. In New Zealand it causes immense damage to native species including insects, snails, lizards and ground-nesting birds, particularly shore birds. As with many introduced animals, it lacks natural predators. With overpopulation, it kills off more insects than initially intended and expands its diet to include things such as snails, worms, and the eggs of wading birds.

Correcting overpopulation is troublesome itself. Attempts to eliminate hedgehogs from bird colonies on the Scottish islands of North Uist and Benbecula in the Outer Hebrides were met with international outrage. Eradication began in 2003 with 690 hedgehogs being killed. Animal welfare groups attempted rescues to save the hedgehogs. By 2007, legal injunctions against the killing of hedgehogs were put in place. In 2008, the elimination process was changed from killing the hedgehogs to trapping them and releasing on the mainland.

(V): No. It's rambling nonsense. It avoid the topic entirely. We aren't even talking about any of those silly things you've drawn into the conversation. Bunny trails NOT welcome.

Bernice: It's called roadkill Bernice, there was a day when our roads were littered with dead hedgehogs. Scientists who study hedgehogs(it was on the news) are now saying that many are learning to not crawl into a ball which is a natural trait when they feel threatened. And a car.. especially at nights with headlamps is a threat.. so they feel.

Hence .. roadkill.

If you look on google you'll find the story.

Artful Dodger: Yes we are and I get this every time when I have a point on here.

I can't help remembering things.

(V): I know what roadkill is, but are they more clever in NZ than they are in UK? they were introduced to NZ and are now a pest...*shakes head*

no need to look on giggle...bing is the go.

(V): You have no point. You ramble around in circles. You don't stay on point. And nothing you bla bla around will change that fact.

What was the geologists main thesis? That's what's being discussed. NOT dinosaurs and hedgehogs.

You've gone off the cliff.

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

It's a little story that you can click and read on how man spread. One such spread was the bearing land bridge. The use of tools spread through one ice age.

It's all their, including the near extinction of man. That was one event.

Artful Dodger: People can use examples Art. I see people comparing things to other things on here?

Did I miss another memo??

(V): You said: "As to random.. that's only due to lack of info over how. "

If you lack information, how can you draw such a conclusion? The reality is, you can't. You're saying that the scientist is wrong about "random" and you use as evidence in your argument the lack of evidence. How's that work?

Then you say: "Plus he ignores that we are the first race on this planet to be able to change significantly our surroundings, such as deforestation.."

Which you can't possibly REALLY know unless you've read his work in its entirety. Which I doubt you have.

So it makes me wonder how you came to that conclusion. Did a hedgehog whisper it in your ear?

And also: "I agree, the carbon footprint thing is a bit crazy in certain respects, but it's also leading to a cut down in fuel usage by making cars more economical."

If the "carbon footprint" is a bit crazy (it's not scientific and it's nonsense. Carbon dioxide is plant food. The environmentalists treat it like it's a polution. And Co2 levels are DOWN. Temps are up. Where's the connection?

You are saying that the end justifies the means. That's bad policy.

(V): Ok... it is a fact that we are an adaptive species..


The point AD was trying to make , is that you claimed that he IGNORED the fact that we are an adaptive species when he made his thesis.... give us some proof how you know that this fact was IGNORED?

Artful Dodger: You are saying that the end justifies the means. That's bad policy.


Thats exactly what he is saying... that it doesnt really matter how we get people to reduce their "carbon foot print" as long as it happens!

Czuch: You've summed it up. ;)

Czuch: Yeah. Interesting that it assumes the very thing is supposed to prove: That in fact there is such a thing as a "carbon footprint" and that such a thing is actually significant to the fact of global warming.

In the 70's it was global cooling. In twenty years from now it will be something else. Politicians and ideologues are always inventing new crises to control people and extort money from the little guy.

Czuch: I've already stated why I think he ignored it. The bloke "Plimer" says the Earth's climate is cyclic and random. To me that is wrong. The climate regarding ice ages and the like is cyclic, true. Random... no. Why ... because they come in cycles. No-one can predict exactly to the minute when they occur, we do not have the weather forecasting ability for that, but they are not random.

But I presumed people here would know that... my bad.

Artful Dodger: Perhaps you don't know what I'm referring to Art regarding carbon footprint.. It's to people (or companies) buying the ability to off put their excessive production of carbon by buying someone's lack of production of carbon.

And have you read all his works to know it's true? I just read the article as presented by Czuch and found errors. Maybe it's just the way Jonathan Manthorpe presented it. But based on that presentation, there are concerns I have over what Plimer is saying.

Is that ok?

And if this Plimer bloke is right, then can you (or Czuch) provide from his work (seeing as you two are saying it's right) the evidence to show he is correct??

(V): Its two different arguments..... you made a statement that he had ignored some evidence, but until your recent post, you never gave any evidence that he had. I only claimed to agree with his thesis, there is a difference.

(V): So what is a zero carbon footprint worth these days, in dollars, and who decides this, and how come the government can sell and keep the cash for my personal carbon foot print, shouldnt I have the right to sell my own and keep the cash?

Maybe what we need is a stock market for carbon foot prints, where those of us who have a very small one can sell what we dont produce to someone who over produces on an open market

Czuch: Sorry Czuch, sometimes I forget that people might not have read or seen the stuff I have. Most of what I think people know is basic stuff about geology, geography, etc is a case such as this.

As to the carbon footprint business.. I'll have to look and see how much it's worth. Seeing as everyone (pro greenhouse or anti greenhouse) is making a buck, I don't see why we shouldn't

Right... that's it. I'm getting into the Carbon offset business. I recon the religious book sellers must be fuming that it's taken over as an idol of sorts.

$5.5 billion in 2006.. No wonder every boffin that can is laughing.

Artful Dodger:

In reply to this:

> If the "carbon footprint" is a bit crazy (it's not scientific and it's nonsense.
> Carbon dioxide is plant food. The environmentalists treat it like it's a polution.
> And Co2 levels are DOWN. Temps are up. Where's the connection?

Usually when we talk of global warming people tend to get the wrong idea. It is a gradual warming that has occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Here is a graph that shows what the anomaly is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

From the 1920s to the present the average atmospheric temperature in the world has gone up about 1 degree centigrade. It does not sound like much, just 1 degree. However, it is a lot if we consider that we are heating up an entire planet. I recommend the full Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

The problem with global warming is not that it will kill everything on Earth. Carbon dioxide and methane are not mustard gas or some toxic substance.

Estimates of the effect of global warming say that we could see a further increase of 1.1 to 6.4 degrees centigrade over the next 100 years.

What is the effect of that? It is not like everything will get cooked or roasted. The problem is that as the temperature goes up, the rate of evaporation of water goes up. In many areas of the world the soil is not able to retain moisture the way it used to and those areas are slowly becoming deserts.

As global warming makes its slow advance, more areas will become arid and agriculture will suffer. The Earth is already having a hard time providing everyone with food. Advances in plant breeding and genetic engineering have made the growing of food easier, but global warming threatens to destroy about 30% of the arable land of the world. That means 30% less food, and by the end of this century the population of the world could be 3 times what it is now. 30% less food and 3 times the number of people is not a joke.

There is a lot of skepticism about this and some scientists doubt it is actually happening and they think the warming mighht be part of a much greater climate cycle. However, the statistical data do point to emmissions of carbond dioxide, methane and other gases as the most likely causes of the warming.

There is also a lot of debate about how to reduce those emmissions. Industrialized countries are willing to reduce emmissions, if populous countries like China and India reduce their emmissions too. Emerging economies like China, india and Brazil are unhappy with the caps because it means that they will have to limit their economic growth.

I am a chemist and I think that global warming is the product of human industrial activity, the use of cars and other means of transport, and the overuse of electricity. However, I also think that we have to be realistic and see that people need those things. The problem with this is that it is a politically charged issue because politicians cannot agree on how to proceed.

Those that want the environment protected at any cost want tough caps imposed. Those that have been lobbyed by oil and energy companies will oppose any action. Squeezed in between are the people of the world who will some day see their grandchildren suffer if something is not done. As always, it is poor people who will pay the price for the agricultural catastrophe that could happen if something is not done.

I think ultimately the only solution will be to teach people to waste less energy. We all love to leave the lights on, run electrical appliances 24 hours a day, drive two block to buy a soda, etc. I am sure that if we all accounted for how we use energy, we would find that 50% of the energy we consume is wasted.

We also need to stimulate companies and universities thaht do research into ways to reduce the amount of gases we emit. That means that the goverment has to take our hard-earned tax dollars and put them to work properly. That will always be a difficult thing, because politicians are influenced by special interests, and taxpayers might be skeptical of how the money is being spent.

Well in the UK it looks like the government (and the law as such) have backed off on prosecution of those who go abroad with their loved ones, and help out those who decide to end their lives due to incurable medical reasons.

It looks like they have seen the difference between choosing how to end your life with dignity and suicide. After all.... It's against the law to let an animal suffer and can end up in a criminal prosecution.

Strange world!!

Euthanasia will always be a touchy subject. Here in Canada it is illegal, and we had a few cases where the legal system saw itself torn in the debate of suffering versus merciful death. I know that if I was suffering and I knew there was no cure I would prefer to die, rather than prolonguing my suffering and that of my family. However, if somebody in my family was seriously ill and suffering, I don't know if I could assist them to die. I think it will always be an extremely difficult subject, like abortion and other things related to death.

Übergeek 바둑이: Death.. yes well... part of life. Biological machines are not made to last, although people have been known by will to extend a scheduled change in address, such is that our bodies are designed to break down.

So much covering death I believe is the church's fault... religion has in the past (not so much now) found it profitable to make us afraid of a change in state. But I find in such fear a paradox in that it denies part of who we are in it's belief.